ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

sheriff of the county where the judgment debtor then maintained an office at the time of the commencement of the proceedings and still maintains an office for the transaction of business, is sufficient to sustain an order granted thereon. Bradley v. Certigue Mining & Dredging Co. (1916), 93 Misc. 519, 157 N. Y. Supp. 275.

Where the assignee of a judgment institutes proceedings supplementary to execution thereon his affidavit to obtain an order for the examination of the judgment debtor must state who owns the judgment, whether it has been transferred, and how the affiant came to own it, to the end that it may appear that the proceedings are in fact brought by the real party in interest. Kemp v. Gartenierg (1916), 93 Misc. 313, 156 N. Y. Supp. 883.

Where the affidavits for a second examination of a judgment debtor in supplementary proceedings do not purport to show any good reasons for the examination, the order should be reversed and the application denied. Shane Bros. & Wilson Co. v. Henshaw (1916), 174 App. Div. 606, 161 N. Y. Supp. 115. In a second examination the court may permit the service of an additional affidavit, showing that since the previous examination the debtor has acquired property not exempt from execution, as the omission of this proof from the application for the second examination was not a jurisdictional defect. Funk & Wagnalls Co. v. Nechamkin (1913), 3 Bradb. 431.

The objection to the sufficiency of papers in supplementary proceedings is waived by the appearance of the defendant and consenting to an adjournment of the examination. German Exchange Bank v. Scheidig (1913), 3 Bradb. 556.

Subd. 4. The Order and Proceedings Thereon.

(Fiero, Spec. Pro., 3rd Ed., pp. 1783-1786.)

The order is one requiring the debtor to attend and be examined. cencerning his property, that the same may be applied in satisfaction of the judgment. Matter of Maltbie v. Lobsitz Mills Co. (1918), 223 N. Y. 227.

ARTICLE IV.

ORDER TO EXAMINE DEBTOR BEFORE RETURN OF EXECUTION. (Fiero, Spec. Pro., 3rd Ed., pp. 1786-1788.)

An order for the examination of a judgment debtor may be granted at any time after the issuing of execution and before the

return thereof; the ten-year limitation provided in section 2435 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not apply. Stevens Co. v. Maus (1913), 155 App. Div. 249, 139 N. Y. Supp. 1059; Press Pub. Co. v. McGill (1912), 136 N. Y. Supp. 177.

As an examination of a judgment debtor before the return of execution is not a substitute for a creditor's bill, the creditor need not first exhaust all his remedies at law as required before an examination after return of execution. Stevens Co. v. Maus (1913), 155 App. Div. 249, 139 N. Y. Supp. 1059; Press Pub. Co. v. McGill (1912), 136 N. Y. Supp. 177.

An affidavit upon an application for an order for the examination of a defendant in a proceeding supplemental to but before the return of execution, which simply contains an allegation that the debtor has property which it unjustly refused to apply to the satisfaction of the judgment based on information and belief, without disclosing the sources thereof, is fatally defective. Matter of Smith v. Haverty's Stables (1913), 157 App. Div. 777, 142 N. Y. Supp. 764.

ARTICLE V.

ORDER TO EXAMINE PERSON HAVING PROPERTY OF JUDGMENT

DEBTOR.

(Fiero, Spec. Pro., 3rd Ed., pp. 1788-1796.)

An order in proceedings supplementary to execution may be granted for the examination of the executors of the will of the mother of the judgment debtor. King v. Burnett (1918), 102 Misc. 161, 168 N. Y. Supp. 405.

A third party who is under subpoena as a witness in supplementary proceedings instituted against a debtor should not be served with a third party order while the subpoena is in force. Steinmann v. Hosier (1912), 139 N. Y. Supp. 863.

Although a receiver of the property of a judgment debtor has been appointed and has qualified the court may still grant an order for the examination of a third party as to property in his hands belonging to the judgment debtor. Matter of Denison v. Jackson Bros. Realty Co. (1913), 158 App. Div. 475, 143 N. Y. Supp. 586. Compare Matter of Walker (1913), 80 Misc. 389, 141 N. Y. Supp. 265.

A judgment creditor is only entitled, as a matter of right, to

one examination in supplementary proceedings of a third party alleged to hold property of the judgment debtor. Hence, on an application for a second order to examine the third party, he should show facts entitling him to a second order which should be limited to the period subsequent to the commencement of the first proceeding. Matter of Walker (1913), 157 App. Div. 609, 142 N. Y. Supp. 972.

ARTICLE VI.
INJUNCTION.

(Fiero, Spec. Pro., 3rd Ed., pp. 1796-1799.)

A third party order in supplementary proceedings may be issued against an employer directing an examination concerning its alleged indebtedness to the judgment debtor, and, pending such examination, restraining the disposition of any property belonging to the judgment debtor. Hayward v. Hayward (1917), 178 App. Div. 92, 164 N. Y. Supp. 877.

Where the ownership of the property of a judgment debtor in the hands of a third party is in dispute a restraining order should not be granted. Rathers v. Kaplan (1911), 138 N. Y. (N. S.), 21.

Supp. 1002, 3 Civ. Pro.

ARTICLE VII.

SERVICE OF ORDER, INJUNCTION, OR WARRANT.

(Fiero, Spec. Pro., 3rd Ed., pp. 1799-1801.)

Where no service was made of an order for the examination of a judgment debtor, and its return was passed, it has no validity and may be disregarded except that the fact that it had been granted should be stated in an application for a new order. Matter of Dorfman v. Jacobs (1917), 100 Misc. 592, 165 N. Y. Supp. 403.

Where an order for examination of a judgment debtor which was returnable at 10 A. M. of a certain day and was not served until 9:40 A. M. of the same day it was held that the debtor should not be adjudged guilty of contempt for failure to obey it. Levey v. Rosett (1917), 166 N. Y. Supp. 1072.

[blocks in formation]

(Fiero, Spec. Pro., 3rd Ed., pp. 1801-1802.)

An attorney at law holding an unsatisfied judgment against a debtor should not be appointed a referee to take evidence in supplementary proceedings brought against the debtor by another creditor. Matter of Higley v. Novark (1911), 145 App. Div. 7, 129 N. Y. Supp. 759.

The judge has supervisory power over supplementary proceedings pending before a referee and on the application of the debtor should compel their termination within a reasonable time after a fair examination. Feinberg v. Kutcosky (1911), 147 App. Div. 393, 132 N. Y. Supp. 9.

Subd. 2. Examination Before Judge or Referee.

(Fiero, Spec. Pro., 3rd Ed., pp. 1802-1807.)

The object of supplementary proceedings is to ferret out fraudulent conveyances and cencealments of property. The examination is therefore allowed to take a wide and searching range, both as to the parties to the proceedings, and to the witnesses. People v. Hanbury (1914), 162 App. Div. 337, 147 N. Y. Supp. 851.

Proceedings supplementary to execution are proceedings before a judge and not before the court, and while a proceeding commenced before one judge may be continued before another, yet it is essential to preserve the continuity by adjournment from time to time. Matter of Wilson v. Bracken (1912), 150 App. Div. 577, 135 N. Y. Supp. 435.

A witness in supplementary proceedings may be compelled to produce books and papers and the judgment creditor is entitled in a proper case to have such documents put in evidence and subjected to his inspection. Steinman v. Conlon (1913), 79 Misc. 527, 141 N. Y. Supp. 79.

ARTICLE X.

PAYMENT BY DEBTOR TO SHERIFF, AND PROCEEDINGS THEREON.

(Fiero, Spec. Pro., 3rd Ed., pp. 1811-1818.)

The judgment creditor may make the application for the order requiring the debtor to turn over property to a receiver. Clark v. Shaw (1915), 91 Misc. 245, 154 N. Y. Supp. 1101.

An order requiring the delivery of property made by the court, instead of by the judge by whom the warrant in supplementary proceedings was granted, is invalid. Chestnut v. Greenberg (1916), 162 N. Y. Supp. 137.

An order to pay money into the hands of the sheriff or receiver can be made only when the judgment debtor's right to the possession of the money or property is not substantially disputed. If there is a real controversy in this respect it cannot be settled in supplementary proceedings. Bernstein v. Traverso (1913), 82 Misc. 411, 143 N. Y. Supp. 1091; Humboldt Exploration Co. v. Fritsch (1912), 150 App. Div. 90, 134 N. Y. Supp. 747; Shea Lynskey (1912), 133 N. Y. Supp. 477. However, the court may appoint a receiver, leaving the receiver to take such steps as may be necessary to obtain the property. Harding v. Conlon (1912), 138 N. Y. Supp. 1014. The proper procedure is to appoint a receiver, who can test the question by action, and not to determine the matter upon motion. Friedman v. Stein (1911), 138 N. Y. Supp. 928. Where a dispute as to a judgment debtor's right to possession arose on cenceded facts, and is confined to questions of law which have been well settled, a third party, by denying the existence of the legal rules, cannot create a substantial dispute so as to deprive a judge of power to make an order for the delivery of property to the sheriff or receiver. Matter of Flynn (1913), 157 App. Div. 241, 141 N. Y. Supp. 807. Where it clearly appears that the appellants held property which under a restraining order they were not allowed to part with possession of, under the terms of an overdue chattel mortgage from the judgment debtor, it cannot be correctly said that the title to the property in question was not the subject of a substantial dispute. Maguire v. O. U. Bean & Co. (1913), 143 N. Y. Supp. 753. Where the title of the debtor is disputed an order denying a motion to compel the third party to deliver the property to a receiver is not an adjudication

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »